Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 102-111 [E6-22496]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 102-111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22496]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-863]


Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the fourth 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is 
December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. We preliminarily determine 
that four companies have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of their ability to comply with our requests for information and, as a 
result, should be assigned a rate based on adverse facts available. We 
have also preliminarily determined that a fifth respondent made sales 
to the United

[[Page 103]]

States of the subject merchandise at prices below normal value.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument(s).

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Lao or Helen Kramer, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
7924 or (202) 482-0405, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 1, 2005, the Department published an Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review, 70 FR 72109 (December 
1, 2005). On December 29, 2005, Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. (Jinfu) and 
Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd. (Shino-Food), requested, in accordance 
with section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations, an 
administrative review of entries of subject merchandise made during the 
POR. Also on December 29, 2005, Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd. (Eulia), 
Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd. (Chengdu Waiyuan), and Kunshan 
Xin'an Trade Co., Ltd. (Kunshan Xin'an) requested that the Department 
conduct an administrative review of each respective company's entries 
during the POR.
    On December 30, 2005, the American Honey Producers Association and 
the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners), requested, in 
accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.213(b), an administrative review of 
entries of subject merchandise made during the POR by 25 Chinese 
producers/exporters.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The request included: Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region 
Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. (Inner 
Mongolia); Kunshan Foreign Trading Company (Kunshan); Zhejiang 
Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. aka 
Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Group 
Corp.; High Hope International Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import & 
Export Corp. (High Hope); Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd.; 
Anhui Native Produce Import & Export Corp.; Henan Native Produce 
Import & Export Corp. (Henan); Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region 
Native Produce and Animal By-Products; Shanghai Xiuwei International 
Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Xiuwei); Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee 
Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dubao); Wuhan Bee Healthy Company, Ltd.; Jinfu 
Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Shinomiel International Trade 
Corporation (Shanghai Shinomiel); Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) 
Co., Ltd.; Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd.; Eurasia Bee's 
Products Co., Ltd. (Eurasia); Foodworld International Club, Ltd. 
(Foodworld); Inner Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd. (Inner 
Mongolia Youth); Apiarist Co.; Kunshan Xin'an Trade Co., Ltd.; 
Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Shino-Food Trade co., 
Ltd.; Wuhu Qinshi Tangye; Zhejiang Willing Foreign Trading Co., 
Ltd.; and Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also on December 30, 2005, Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., 
Ltd. (Anhui Honghui) and Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd. 
(Jiangsu), requested, in accordance with section 19 C.F.R. Sec.  
351.213(b), an administrative review of entries of subject merchandise 
made during the POR.
    On February 1, 2006, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of 27 Chinese companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 2006). On February 2, 2006, Anhui 
Native Produce Import and Export Corporation submitted a no-shipments 
letter to the Department requesting that the administrative review as 
to the company be rescinded. On February 13, 2006, petitioners withdrew 
their review request for Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd. On February 23, 
2006, petitioners filed a letter withdrawing their review request for 
Eurasia, Foodworld, Henan, High Hope, Inner Mongolia, Inner Mongolia 
Youth, Kunshan, Shanghai Shinomiel, Shanghai Xiuwei, Dubao, Wuhu Qinshi 
Tangye, and Zhejiang Willing Foreign Trading Co., Ltd. On February 27, 
2006, Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Eswell) submitted a no-
shipments letter to the Department requesting rescission of its 
administrative review.
    On February 28, 2006, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to nine PRC producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise covered by this administrative review. On March 6, 2006, 
the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Apiarist Co.
    On March 7, 2006, Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products 
Import & Export Group Corp. (Zhejiang) and its affiliates, including 
Zhejiang Willing Foreign Trading Co., Ltd., submitted a no-shipments 
letter to the Department requesting rescission of its administrative 
review.\2\ On March 9, 2006, both Chengdu Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an 
withdrew their requests for administrative review, stating that neither 
company intended to participate in the proceeding. On March 10, 2006, 
Anhui Honghui, Jiangsu and Shino-Food submitted their respective 
quantity and value responses to the Department's questionnaire. On 
March 13, 2006, Jinfu submitted a no-shipments letter to the Department 
requesting rescission of its administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On March 9, 2006, Zhejiang submitted a letter clarifying 
that it intended to include a request for rescission for both itself 
and its affiliates, including Zhejiang Willing Foreign Trading Co., 
Ltd., in its March 7, 2006, letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 20, 2006, Shino-Food submitted its section A response, and 
the exhibits for its section A response on March 23, 2006. The exhibits 
were submitted one day past the deadline for submission. See the 
Department's March 22, 2006, Memorandum to the File.
    On March 31, 2006, petitioners met with the Department to discuss 
issues in the present administrative review and to notify the 
Department that they had not been served with copies of Shino-Food's 
section A response. See the Department April 3, 2006, Memorandum to the 
File. On April 3, 2006, the Department submitted a Memorandum to the 
File in which it explained that only three respondents (Anhui Honghui, 
Jiangsu, and Shino-Food) are participating in this administrative 
review (i.e., have not submitted no-shipment letters or letters 
indicating they did not intend to participate in the administrative 
review). See the Department's April 3, 2006, Memorandum to the File. 
Accordingly, the Department explained that it would not engage in a 
respondent selection process. On April 4, 2006, both Anhui Honghui and 
Jiangsu submitted their responses to section A of the Department's 
questionnaire. On April 7, 2006, petitioners withdrew their review 
request for Anhui Native Produce Import & Export Corp., Apiarist Co., 
Eswell, Zhejiang, and Jinfu.
    On April 17, 2006, the Department sent a memorandum to the 
Department's Office of Policy requesting a list of surrogate countries 
to be used in this proceeding, and received a memorandum containing the 
Office of Policy's potential surrogate countries on April 20, 2006.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Department notes that a separate memorandum from the 
Office of Policy was sent on April 24, 2006, to Office 7 Program 
Manager Abdelali Elouaradia to account for the different period of 
review for Eulia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 19, 2006, the Department issued supplemental sections A, 
C, and D questionnaires to Shino-Food. On April 27, 2006, petitioners 
submitted comments on Shino-Food's, March 20, 2006, section A, and 
April 3, 2006, sections C, and D questionnaire responses. On May 1, 
2006, Anhui Honghui and Jiangsu submitted their respective responses to 
sections C and D

[[Page 104]]

of the Department's supplemental questionnaires.
    On May 4, 2006, Shino-Food submitted its response to the 
Department's April 19, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On June 17, 
2006, Shino-Food submitted its response to the Department's June 9, 
2006, supplemental questionnaire. On June 26, 2006, Anhui Honghui 
submitted its response to the Department's June 8, 2006, supplemental 
questionnaire. On June 27, 2006, Jiangsu submitted a withdrawal letter 
to the Department in which it explained that it would no longer 
participate in the administrative review. On July 27, 2006, Anhui 
Honghui submitted comments on surrogate information with which to value 
the factors of production in this proceeding. On June 30 and July 30, 
2006, Shino-Food submitted letters to the Department stating that due 
to the unavailability of its general manger, it would not be able to 
participate in verification during any of the times proposed by the 
Department. See ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available and the PRC-Wide 
Rate'' section below for a complete discussion of Shino-Food.
    On August 10, 2006, petitioners submitted comments premised on the 
Department's verification of Anhui Honghui, which did not occur. On the 
same date, Anhui Honghui submitted its sales reconciliation. On August 
16, 2006, the Department published an extension of the time limits to 
complete these preliminary results. See Honey from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 
FR 47170 (August 16, 2006).
    On September 8, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental 
questionnaire to Anhui Honghui, to which Anhui Honghui responded on 
September 29, 2006. On November 13, 2006, the Department again extended 
the time limits for the preliminary results. In the same publication 
the Department also aligned the POR of the current new shipper reviews 
with this administrative review. See Honey from the People's Republic 
of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results 
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 
71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006). On November 30, 2006, the Department 
submitted a surrogate country selection memorandum to the file. See the 
Department's November 30, 2006, Memorandum to the File. On December 4, 
2006, the Department put on the record of the present administrative 
review certain factors of production contained on the record of the 
current new shipper reviews of honey from the PRC. See the Department's 
December 4, 2006, Memorandum to the File.

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The products covered by this order are natural honey, artificial 
honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, 
preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural 
honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes 
all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut 
comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable 
under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the Department's written description of the merchandise under order is 
dispositive.

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    As explained above, Anhui Native Produce Import & Export Corp., 
Eswell, Zhejiang, and Jinfu (collectively, ``the four companies'') all 
submitted no-shipment letters to the Department in which they requested 
rescission from this administrative review. To determine whether the 
four companies made shipments during the POR, the Department examined 
PRC honey shipment data maintained by U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP). Based on the information obtained from CBP, we found 
no entries of subject merchandise during the POR manufactured or 
exported by the four companies to the United States. Therefore, 
pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.213(d)(3), the Department is 
preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to the four 
companies.
    Additionally, as explained above, on February 23, 2006, pursuant to 
19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.213(d)(1), petitioners withdrew their review 
requests for the following 13 companies: Eurasia, Foodworld, Henan, 
High Hope, Inner Mongolia\4\, Inner Mongolia Youth, Kunshan, Shanghai 
Shinomiel, Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai Xiuwei, Dubao, 
Wuhun Qinshi Tangye, and Zhejiang Willing Foreign Trading Co., Ltd. In 
addition, on April 7, 2006, also pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Sec.  
351.213(d)(1), petitioners withdrew their review request for Apiarist 
Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Department notes that while petitioners requested a 
review for Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and 
Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp., and Inner Mongolia 
Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products separately, 
both names refer to the same company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because petitioners submitted their requests for withdrawal of 
review within the 90-day deadline mandated by 19 C.F.R. Sec.  
351.213(d)(1), and no other party requested a review for these 
companies, the Department is preliminarily rescinding this 
administrative review with respect to the 14 companies listed above.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, the 
Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should 
be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can 
affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law 
(de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to its export 
activities. In this review Anhui Honghui submitted information in 
support of its claim for a company-specific rate.
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991) 
(Sparklers), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of 
China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-7 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). The 
Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can 
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control 
over export activities.
    Anhui Honghui provided complete separate-rate information in its 
responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, 
we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether this 
exporter is independent from government control.
    For the reasons discussed below in the section titled ``The Use of 
Facts Otherwise Available and PRC-wide Rate,'' we have preliminarily 
determined that Jiangsu, Shino-Food, Chengdu Waiyuan, and Kunshan 
Xin'an do not qualify for a separate rate and are instead part of the 
PRC-wide entity.

[[Page 105]]

Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. As discussed below, our analysis shows that 
the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de jure 
absence of government control for Anhui Honghui based on each of these 
factors.
    Anhui Honghui has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the ``Company Law of 
the People's Republic of China'' (December 29, 1993) (Company Law), the 
``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China'' (May 12, 1994) 
(Foreign Trade Law), the revised Foreign Trade Law (April 6, 2004), and 
``Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China 
Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations'' (June 3, 1988) 
(Legal Corporations Regulations). See Exhibit 3 of Anhui Honghui's 
April 4, 2006, submission (section A response). Anhui Honghui also 
submitted a copy of its business license in Exhibit 4 of its section A 
response. The Feidong County Industrial and Commercial Administration 
Bureau issued this license. Anhui Honghui explains that its business 
license defines the scope of the company's business activities and 
ensures the company has sufficient capital to continue its business 
operations. Anhui Honghui affirms that its business operations are 
limited to the scope of the license, although the license can be 
amended if the company wishes to expand the scope of its operations, 
and that the license may be revoked if the company has insufficient 
capital, or engages in activities outside the scope of its business. 
Further, Anhui Honghui states that the license must be renewed or 
reviewed annually, and to obtain a renewal, it must apply for a renewal 
and provide a copy of its most recent financial statements to the 
issuing authority.
    We note that Anhui Honghui states that it is governed by the 
Company Law, which it claims governs the establishment of limited 
liability companies and provides that such a company shall operate 
independently and be responsible for its own profits and losses. Anhui 
Honghui has placed on the record the Foreign Trade Law and stated that 
this law allows it full autonomy from the central authority in 
governing its business operations. We have reviewed Article 11 of 
Chapter II of the Foreign Trade Law, which states, ``foreign trade 
dealers shall enjoy full autonomy in their business operation and be 
responsible for their own profits and losses in accordance with the 
law.'' As in prior cases, we have analyzed such PRC laws and found that 
they establish an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., Pure Magnesium 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of New Shipper 
Review, 63 FR 3085, 3086 (January 21, 1998) and Preliminary Results of 
New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's 
Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001), as affirmed in 
Final Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 
the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 45006 (August 27, 2001). 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de 
jure control over the export activities of Anhui Honghui.

Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control of its 
export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by, or subject 
to, the approval of a government authority; (2) whether the respondent 
has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements; 
(3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making 
decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) whether 
the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587. Therefore, the Department 
has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in 
determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of 
government control, which would preclude the Department from assigning 
separate rates.
    Anhui Honghui has asserted the following: (1) it is a privately 
owned company; (2) there is no government participation in its setting 
of export prices; (3) its general manager has the authority to bind 
sales contracts; (4) the company's executive director appoints the 
company's management and it does not have to notify government 
authorities of its management selection; (5) there are no restrictions 
on the use of its export revenue; and (6) its executive director 
decides how profits will be used. We have examined the documentation 
provided and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated 
among exporters of PRC honey.
    Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence 
of government control, both in law and in fact, over Anhui Honghui's 
export activities, we preliminarily determine that Anhui Honghui has 
met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and the PRC-Wide Rate

    Anhui Honghui, Shino-Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu Waiyuan, and Kunshan 
Xin'an were given the opportunity to respond to the Department's 
questionnaires. As explained above, we received complete questionnaire 
responses only from Anhui Honghui and we have calculated a separate 
rate for this company. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of 
subject merchandise except for entries from PRC producers/exporters 
that have their own calculated rate.
    Shino-Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu Waiyuan, and Kunshan Xin'an are 
appropriately considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity because they 
failed to establish their eligibility for a separate rate. Because the 
PRC-wide entity did not provide requested information necessary to the 
instant proceeding, it is necessary that we review the PRC-wide entity. 
In doing so, we note that section 776(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended, (the Act), mandates that the Department use the facts 
available if necessary information is not available on the record of an 
antidumping proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act 
provides that if an interested party or any other person: (A) withholds 
information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) 
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission 
of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to 
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly 
impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information 
but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of 
the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, 
use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title. Where the Department determines that a 
response to a request for information does not comply with the request, 
section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department shall promptly 
inform the party submitting the response of the nature of the 
deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party 
with an

[[Page 106]]

opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. Section 782(d) of the 
Act additionally states that if the party submits further information 
that is unsatisfactory or untimely, the administering authority may, 
subject to subsection (e), disregard all or part of the original and 
subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the 
Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted 
by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does 
not meet all the applicable requirements established by the 
administering authority if: (1) the information is submitted by the 
deadline established for its submission; (2) the information can be 
verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve 
as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the 
interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its 
ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements 
established by the administering authority with respect to the 
information; and (5) the information can be used without undue 
difficulties.
    The Department finds that the PRC-wide entity (including Shino-
Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu Waiyuan, and Kunshan Xin'an) did not respond to 
our request for information and that necessary information either was 
not provided, or the information provided cannot be verified and is not 
sufficiently complete to enable the Department to use it for these 
preliminary results. Therefore, we find it necessary, under section 
776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for 
the preliminary results of this review for the PRC-wide entity.
    As stated above in the ``Background'' section, on December 29, 
2005, Chengdu Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an requested an administrative 
review. On December 30, 2005, petitioners requested a review with 
respect to these two companies. On March 9, 2006, both Chengdu Waiyuan 
and Kunshan Xin'an withdrew their requests for administrative review, 
stating that neither company intended to participate in this 
administrative review. In their February 23, 2006, and April 7, 2006, 
withdrawal of review request letters, petitioners did not withdraw 
their request for review with respect to either Chengdu Waiyuan or 
Kunshan Xin'an.\5\ Chengdu Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an failed to respond 
to the Department's antidumping questionnaires. The Department has no 
information on the record for Chengdu Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an with 
which to calculate a dumping margin or determine if either is eligible 
for a separate rate in this proceeding; therefore, we find that Chengdu 
Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an have significantly impeded the proceeding, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Because 
Chengdu Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaires, sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In both their February 23, 2006, and April 7, 2006, 
withdrawal of review request letters, petitioners stated that they 
wanted the administrative review to continue with respect to both 
Chengdu Waiyuan and Kunshan Xin'an.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above in the ``Background'' section, Shino-Food and 
Jiangsu responded to the Department's initial antidumping 
questionnaire, with Shino-Food responding to two subsequent 
supplemental questionnaires. With regard to Shino-Food, as stated above 
in the ``Background'' section, Shino-Food submitted letters to the 
Department in which it stated that it would not participate in 
verification, thereby failing to accommodate the Department's repeated 
attempts to schedule verification. On June 23, 2006, the Department 
contacted Shino-Food, and proposed a five-day verification of Shino-
Food at any time between July 10 and July 21, 2006. See the 
Department's June 29, 2006, Memorandum to the File. Shino-Food informed 
the Department that Shino-Food's general manager was experiencing 
health problems and would not be able to accommodate the Department's 
proposed verification dates. Shino-Food also informed the Department 
that its sales manager would be in Europe during the proposed 
verification dates and, thus, would not be able to assist the 
Department with verification. On June 27, 2006, the Department proposed 
verification of Shino-Food during August 14 - 18, 2006, after the 
return of Shino Food's sales manager from his trip. On June 28, 2006, 
Shino-Food stated it nevertheless would not able to participate in 
verification during that week, because the general manager insisted 
that he must be present for verification and that no one else could 
participate in his absence. See the Department's June 29, 2006, 
Memorandum to the File.
    On June 30, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Shino-Food 
reviewing the telephone conversations that took place between the 
Department and the company. In this letter, the Department described 
its attempts to schedule verification of Shino-Food and Shino-Food's 
rejections of our requests. We provided an additional opportunity for 
Shino-Food to accept the proposed verification dates of August 14 - 18, 
2006, and warned the company that the Department would rely on adverse 
information in conducting its dumping analysis if Shino-Food continued 
to refuse to allow verification. On June 30, 2006, Shino-Food submitted 
a letter reiterating that due to the unavailability of its general 
manger, it would not be able to participate in verification during the 
Department's proposed August dates.
    On July 19, 2006, the Department transferred reconciliation 
information collected from the verification of Shino-Food during the 
antidumping duty new shipper review to the record of the present 
administrative review. See the Department's July 19, 2006, Memorandum 
to the File.
    On July 20, 2006, Shino-Food submitted a letter to the Department 
stating that due to the unavailability of its management personnel, it 
would not be able to participate in verification during the production 
season of the current POR. On July 24, 2006, the Department submitted a 
memorandum to the file in which we clarified that the Department did 
not request verification during the production season of Shino-Food. 
The Department then made a third attempt to schedule verification with 
Shino-Food for September 18 - 22, 2006, which the company also refused. 
See the Department's July 24, 2006, Memorandum to the File.
    Due to Shino-Food's refusal to schedule verification of its 
submitted information by the Department, as explained above, we 
preliminarily find that Shino-Food has failed to cooperate to the best 
of its ability and has significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, the 
Department preliminarily finds that the application of facts available 
is appropriate for these preliminary results.
    With regard to Jiangsu, on June 27, 2006, the Department received a 
letter from Jiangsu stating that it was withdrawing its participation 
in this review. Due to Jiangsu's failure to participate in these 
proceedings and in verification, we preliminarily find that Jiangsu has 
significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, the Department preliminarily 
finds that the application of facts available is appropriate for these 
preliminary results.

Application of Adverse Inference

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of the respondent if it determines that

[[Page 107]]

a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Adverse 
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session, 
Vol. 1 (1994) at 870. In determining whether a respondent has failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department need not make a 
determination regarding the willfulness of a respondent's conduct. See 
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F. 3d 1373, 1379-1384 (Fed. 
Cir. 2003). Furthermore, ''. . . affirmative evidence of bad faith on 
the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make 
an adverse inference.'' Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: 
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).
    In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of 
its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with 
the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient 
attention to its statutory duties. See Pacific Giant Inc. v. United 
States, 223 F. Supp 2d 1336, 1342-43 (CIT 2002). Furthermore, the 
Department also considers the accuracy and completeness of submitted 
information, and whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of 
accurate dumping margins. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 
Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997).
    Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide 
entity (including Shino-Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu Waiyuan, and Kunshan 
Xin'an) failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to 
comply with requests for information. As discussed above, the PRC-wide 
entity informed the Department that it would not participate in this 
review, or otherwise did not provide the requested information, despite 
repeated requests that it do so. This information was in the sole 
possession of the respondents, and could not be obtained otherwise. 
Thus, because the PRC-wide entity refused to participate fully in this 
proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse 
to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in selecting from among the 
facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that the companies 
that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this 
review.

Selection of AFA Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on 
information derived from: (1) the petition; (2) a final determination 
in the investigation; (3) any previous review or determination; or (4) 
any information placed on the record. In reviews, it is the 
Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest rate determined 
for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 
FR 19504, 19508 (April 21, 2003).
    The U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's 
practice in this regard. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 
F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (Rhone Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. United 
States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a 
different respondent in a LTFV investigation); see also Kompass Food 
Trading Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 683-684 (2000) (upholding a 
51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from 
a different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen 
International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 
1347-1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the 
highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a 
previous administrative review).
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' Static Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales 
at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The 
Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' SAA at 870. See also Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 
FR 76910, 76912 (December 23, 2004). In choosing the appropriate 
balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond 
accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the 
respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior 
margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior 
margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if 
it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced 
current information showing the margin to be less.'' Rhone Poulenc, 899 
F.2d at 1190.
    Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its practice, the 
Department has preliminarily assigned the rate of 212.39 percent, the 
highest rate determined in any segment of the proceeding to the PRC-
wide entity (including Shino-Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu Waiyuan, and 
Kunshan Xin'an) as AFA. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006) (AR3 Final Results).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies 
on the facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary 
information,'' the Department shall, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the 
Department's disposal. The SAA states that ``corroborate'' means to 
determine that the information used has probative value. See SAA at 
870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. With respect to Shino-Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu 
Waiyuan, and Kunshan Xin'an, we are applying the highest rate from any 
previous segment of this administrative proceeding as adverse facts 
available, which is a rate calculated for Anhui Honghui in the AR3 
Final Results. However, unlike other types of information, such as 
input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for 
calculated dumping margins. The only source for calculated margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if 
the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated 
dumping margin from the current or a prior segment of the proceeding, 
it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that 
time period. See, e.g., Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Italy; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
36551, 36552 (July 11, 1996), affirmed without change in Grain-Oriented 
Electrical Steel from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative

[[Page 108]]

Review, 62 FR 2655, 2656 (January 17, 1997). With respect to the 
relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department will 
consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a 
margin continues to have relevance.
    Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh 
Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996), the Department 
disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information 
available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was 
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting 
in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a 
margin that has been discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United 
States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not 
use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these 
unusual circumstances are present here. Accordingly, we determine that 
the highest rate from any previous segment of this administrative 
proceeding (i.e., the calculated rate of 212.39 percent) is in 
accordance with the requirement of section 776(c) that secondary 
information be corroborated (i.e., that it have probative value). The 
information used in calculating this margin was based on sales and 
production data of a respondent in a prior review, as well as on the 
most appropriate surrogate value information available to the 
Department, chosen from submissions by the parties in that review, as 
well as information gathered by the Department itself. Furthermore, the 
calculation of this margin was subject to comment from interested 
parties in the proceeding. See AR3 Final Results. Moreover, as there is 
no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this 
rate is not appropriately used as adverse facts available for Shino-
Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu Waiyuan, and Kunshan Xin'an, we determine that 
this rate has probative value.

Affiliation

    Anhui Honghui claims that it is affiliated with Honghui Group (USA) 
Corp., (Honghui USA) within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act. 
Section 771(33) of the Act states that affiliated persons include: (A) 
members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by the 
whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants; (B) 
any officer or director of an organization and such organization; (C) 
partners; (D) employer and employee; (E) any person directly or 
indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, five 
percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any 
organization and such organization; (F) two or more persons directly or 
indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, 
any person; (G) any person who controls any other person and such other 
person. For purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to 
control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a 
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person. To 
find affiliation between companies, the Department must find that at 
least one of the criteria listed above is applicable to the 
respondents.
    In the present case, Anhui Honghui reports in Exhibit 7 of its 
section A response that the same person controls and owns both Anhui 
Honghui and Honghui USA. Additionally, in the new shipper review of 
honey from the PRC, we found that Anhui Honghui was affiliated with 
Honghui USA and that the use of CEP sales was appropriate. See Notice 
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews: Honey 
From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 69350, 69353 (November 29, 
2004), affirmed without change in Honey From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 
70 FR 9271 (February 25, 2005) and AR3 Final Results. For purposes of 
this review, there is no information on the record that would cause the 
Department to reconsider its affiliation finding. Therefore, pursuant 
to sections 771(33)(E) and (F) of the Act, we preliminarily find that 
Anhui Honghui and Honghui USA are affiliated.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the respondent's sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States were made at prices below normal 
value, we compared their U.S. prices to normal values, as described in 
the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

U.S. Price

    Because we have preliminarily determined that Anhui Honghui and 
Honghui USA are affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33) of the 
Act, we have classified all Honghui U.S. sales as constructed export 
price (CEP) transactions.

Constructed Export Price

    For Anhui Honghui we calculated CEP in accordance with section 
772(b) of the Act, because certain sales were made on behalf of the 
PRC-based company by its U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers. We 
based CEP on packed, delivered or ex-warehouse prices to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made 
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these 
expenses included foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and 
handling charges, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
brokerage and handling, U.S. warehouse fees, U.S. import (customs) 
duties, U.S. inland freight expenses from the port to warehouse and 
from the port to the customer, and added (where applicable) freight 
revenue.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted 
those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in 
the United States, including direct selling expenses, credit expenses, 
and indirect selling expenses (inventory carrying costs). We also made 
an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act.
    As explained above, because Anhui Honghui and Honghui USA are 
affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act, we are 
continuing to analyze Honghui USA's sales to the first unaffiliated 
customer.
    Where foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, or 
marine insurance, were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in 
renminbi, we valued these services using Indian surrogate values (see 
``Factors of Production'' section below for further discussion). For 
those expenses that were provided by a market-economy provider and paid 
for in market-economy currency, we used the reported expense.

Normal Value

Non-Market-Economy Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a NME country. Pursuant to section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003),

[[Page 109]]

unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-
2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 
70488 (December 18, 2003). None of the parties to these reviews have 
contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value (NV) 
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME 
countries.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market-economy countries that: (1) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the 
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic 
development, as identified in the ``Memorandum from the Office of 
Policy to Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Office 7'' dated April 
20, 2006. In addition, based on publicly available information placed 
on the record (e.g., world production data), India is a significant 
producer of honey. Accordingly, we considered India the surrogate 
country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it 
meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. See 
``Memorandum to the File: Selection of a Surrogate Country,'' dated 
November 30, 2006.

Factors of Production

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited 
to: (A) hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials 
employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D) 
representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used factors 
of production reported by the producer or exporter for materials, 
energy, labor, and packing, except as indicated. To calculate NV, we 
multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available 
Indian values.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our 
practice. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 
(December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 6; and Certain Preserved Mushrooms from China Final Results of 
First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of 
China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. When we used publicly available 
import data from the Ministry of Commerce of India (Indian Import 
Statistics) for December 2004 through November 2005 to value inputs 
sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we added to the Indian surrogate 
values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the 
reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the 
distance from the nearest port of export to the factory. See, Sigma 
Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When we 
used non-import surrogate values for factors sourced domestically by 
PRC suppliers, we based freight for inputs on the actual distance from 
the input supplier to the site at which the input was used.
    In instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs, 
in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from 
both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available, 
non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all 
export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our 
surrogate value calculations. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 
12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; 
see also, Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color 
Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800, 
66808 (November 28, 2003), unchanged in the Department's final results 
at Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television 
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 
2004). For a complete discussion of the import data that we excluded 
from our calculation of surrogate values, see ``Memorandum to the File: 
Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Honey from the People's Republic of China,'' dated December 21, 2006 
(Factor Valuation Memo). This memorandum is on file in the Central 
Records Unit of the Department, located in room B099.
    Where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous with the POR to value factors, we adjusted the 
surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as 
published in the International Financial Statistics of the 
International Monetary Fund, for those surrogate values in Indian 
rupees. We made currency conversions, where necessary, pursuant to 19 
C.F.R. Sec.  351.415, to U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate 
corresponding to the reported date of each sale. We relied on the daily 
exchanges rates posted on the Import Administration website (https://
ia.ita.doc.gov). See Factor Valuation Memo.
    We valued the factors of production as follows:
    To value raw honey, we took a weighted average of the raw honey 
prices for each month from December 2002 through June 2003, based on 
the percentage of each type of honey produced and sold, as derived from 
EDA Rural Systems Pvt Ltd. website, https://www.litchihoney.com (EDA 
data), and as placed by the Department on the record of this 
administrative review on December 4, 2006. We inflated the value for 
raw honey using the POR average WPI rate.
    The respondents in this review submitted news articles to be used 
as potential sources for the surrogate value data for raw honey, 
including an article entitled ``Monograph on Traditional Sciences and 
Technologies of India Honey Industry'' from the website https://
www.mandafamily.com/indhonindresources.htm dated December 2, 2005, an 
article entitled ``Honey Prices Nosedive As Supply Exceeds Demand'' 
from https://www.financialexpress.com dated July 11, 2006, and an 
article entitled ``Honey, the Sure Way To Make Money'' from the website 
https://www.thehindu.com, dated September 11, 2005.
    In addition, the Department conducted extensive research on 
potential raw honey surrogate values for this administrative review. 
The Department found the sources submitted by respondents and its own 
research not to be as reliable as EDA data because of the lack of 
information detailing how the conclusions stated in the sources were 
determined, researched, and collected. The EDA data are supported with 
information detailing how its figures are determined, researched, and 
collected. Additionally,

[[Page 110]]

the EDA data provide multiple price points over the course of an 
extended period of time, whereas alternative data report very few or 
just a single weighted average price for a year or succession of years. 
Moreover, the use of EDA data is also consistent with the Department's 
recent decision in the third administrative review of this order. See 
AR3 Final Results, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1. Therefore, because we find EDA data to be the best available 
data on the record, we have not used any of these alternate sources 
proposed by respondents in the preliminary results. For a complete 
discussion of the Department's analysis of honey, see pages 3-5 of the 
Factor Valuation Memo.
    To value coal, the Department derived the weighted-average of the 
import volume and value from the Indian Import Statistics, the 
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) for HS 27011920 
and as placed by the Department on the record of this administrative 
review on December 4, 2006. In calculating the surrogate values, the 
Department eliminated the data of the countries, identified as being 
non-market economy countries (i.e., the PRC, and Vietnam), and those 
deemed to maintain broadly available, non-industry specific subsidies 
that may benefit all exporters to all export markets (i.e. Indonesia, 
South Korea, and Thailand), as identified above in the ``Valuation of 
Factors'' section of Factor Valuation Memo, from the dataset. See 
Factor Valuation Memo at pages 2 and 7.
    To value water, we calculated the average price of water rates 
within and outside of industrial zones from various regions as reported 
by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, https://
midcindia.org, dated June 1, 2003, and as placed by the Department on 
the record of this administrative review on December 4, 2006. We 
inflated the value for water using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor 
Valuation Memo.
    We valued electricity using the 2000 electricity price in India 
reported by the International Energy Agency statistics for Energy 
Prices & Taxes, Third Quarter 2003, as submitted by Anhui Honghui in 
its July 27, 2006 surrogate values submission. We inflated the value 
for electricity using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation 
Memo.
    While Anhui Honghui also identified diesel fuel as an input 
consumed in the production of the subject merchandise, the Department 
considers this material as overhead rather than direct material inputs. 
The Department therefore has excluded diesel fuel from the normal value 
calculation.
    To value paint, we used Indian Import Statistics, contemporaneous 
with the POR. In calculating the surrogate values, the Department 
eliminated the data of the countries, identified as being non-market 
economy countries (i.e., the PRC, and Vietnam), and those deemed to 
maintain broadly available, non-industry specific subsidies that may 
benefit all exporters to all export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South 
Korea, and Thailand), as identified above in the ``Valuation of 
Factors'' section of Factor Valuation Memo, from the dataset. See 
Factor Valuation Memo at pages 2 and 7. The Department calculated a POR 
contemporaneous paint surrogate value by deriving the weighted-average 
of the import volume and value from the Indian Import Statistics, as 
identified by the designated Indian Trade Classification, based on HS 
3208 and HS 3209. After deriving the weight average of each HS category 
of paint, the Department calculated the simple average of the two 
categories. See Factor Valuation Memo at pages 2 and 5.
    To value drums, we relied upon a price quote from an Indian steel 
drum manufacturer from September 2000, which was used in the AR3 Final 
Results, and as placed by the Department on the record of this 
administrative review on December 4, 2006. We inflated the value for 
drums using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses, and profit, we relied upon publicly available information in 
the 2004-2005 annual report of Mahabaleshwar Honey Production 
Cooperative Society Ltd. (MHPC), a producer of the subject merchandise 
in India, and placed by the Department on the record of this 
administrative review on December 4, 2006. Anhui Honghui maintains in 
its July 27, 2006, surrogate values submission that Department should 
rely on information available in an alternate Indian producer's 
financial statements, that of Apis India Natural Products Ltd. (Apis), 
2003 2004. However, we preliminarily find that MHPC data are more 
appropriate than Apis data because the Apis data are not as reliable or 
detailed as that of MHPC. In addition, MHPC materials include a 
complete annual report, auditor's report, and complete profit and loss 
business statements that segregate MHPC's honey and fruit canning 
businesses. We note that MHPC is a honey processing business and its 
financial statements include details on the costs and revenues related 
to its honey processing business. Therefore, for these preliminary 
results we are calculating SG&A based on the MHPC data as consistent 
with the AR3 Final Results. For a further discussion of this issue, see 
Factor Valuation Memo.
    Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar 
levels of per capita gross domestic product, 19 C.F.R. Sec.  
351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. 
Therefore, to value the labor input, we used the PRC's regression-based 
wage rate published by Import Administration on its website, https://
www.ia.ita.doc.gov. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    To value truck freight, we calculated a weighted-average freight 
cost based on publicly available data from www.infreight.com, an Indian 
inland freight logistics resource website, and submitted by Anhui 
Honghui in its July 27, 2006, surrogate value submission. The 
Department valued international freight, where necessary, based on 
publicly available price quotes from a Danish international shipping 
and logistics provider, Maersk Line (formerly Maersk Sealand), a 
division of the A.P. Moller - Maersk Group, at https://
www.maerskline.com. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    We valued marine insurance, where necessary, based on publicly 
available price quotes from a marine insurance provider at https://
www.rjgconsultants.com/insurance.html, and as placed by the Department 
on the record of this administrative review on December 4, 2006. We 
valued international freight expenses, where necessary, using 
contemporaneous freight quotes that the Department obtained from Maersk 
Line, also as placed by the Department on the record of this 
administrative review on December 4, 2006. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    To value brokerage and handling, we used a simple average of the 
publicly summarized versions of the average value for brokerage and 
handling expenses reported in the U.S. sales listings in Essar Steel 
Ltd.'s (Essar Steel) February 28, 2005, submission in the third 
antidumping duty review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from India, Section C Response, (February 28, 2005), and the 
March 9, 2004, submission from Pidilite Industries Ltd. (Pidilite) in 
the antidumping duty investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 
India, Section C Response, (March 9, 2004), which have been placed on 
the record of this review. See Factor Valuation Memo at Exhibit 20. 
Since both the reported rate in Essar Steel and the

[[Page 111]]

Pidilite rate are not contemporaneous, we adjusted these rates for 
inflation using the POR wholesale WPI for India to be current with the 
POR of this administrative review. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    In accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final 
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value the factors of production until 
20 days following the date of publication of these preliminary results.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty 
margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                          Exporter                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anhui Honghui Foodstuffs (Group) Co., Ltd. (Anhui Honghui)..  248.96[per
                                                                    cnt]
PRC-Wide Rate (including Shino-Food, Jiangsu, Chengdu         212.39[per
 Waiyuan, and Kunshan Xin'an)...............................        cnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin, see the analysis memorandum for Anhui Honghui for the 
preliminary results of the fourth administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC, dated December 21, 2006. 
Public Versions of this memorandum are on file in the CRU.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and 
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The 
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to 
CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. 
For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-
specific assessment rates for honey from the PRC on a per-unit basis. 
Specifically, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the 
difference between normal value and export price or constructed export 
price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise 
sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment 
amount. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results 
of review, we will direct CBP to lev